When the international art extravaganza opens on May 9, visitors to the pavilion sponsored by the Vatican will find a fusion of past and present in the music of the 12th-century German Saint Hildegard of Bingen being interpreted by some of today’s most innovative artists.

Helping bring the exhibit to life is , a professor of musicology at the Ģ����ý, whose extensive research into Hildegard has shaped how the world understands and performs her music.

Meconi was among the consultants to the creative team behind the Holy See’s pavilion, titled which as one of “eight pavilions that have the Venice Biennale buzzing.” The life and work of Hildegard inspired the exhibition and, according to the Holy See, centers on themes of “slowing down, listening, contemplating, and caring” and features performances by 24 artists, including stars like FKA Twigs, Brian Eno, Dev Hynes, and Patti Smith.

“One of the things I’ve always loved about Hildegard is how inspiring her music is to artists of all kinds,” says Meconi, whose book (University of Illinois Press, 2018) remains the first and only English-language text devoted to Hildegard’s work as a composer.

“Her music consists of a single melodic line that modern musicians use as a tabula rasa, bringing their own ideas and interpretations to it while still engaging with something authentically medieval,” Meconi says.

The Venice Biennale was founded in 1895 and is held every two years. Often described as the “Olympics of the art world” for its pavilions hosted by countries, the festival brings together artists, architects, and musicians and is a major stage for new ideas and cultural exchanges.

Part of the Vatican’s pavilion is located in The Mystical Garden in Venice, where visitors can listen to commissioned re-compositions of Hildegard’s music through headphones as they wander the secluded garden’s plots of vegetables and flowers.

The pieces were curated by Hans Ulrich Obrist and Ben Vickers in collaboration with Soundwalk Collective, an experimental sound art organization based in Berlin and New York City.

Ģ����ý scholarship shapes a global stage

Meconi’s involvement began last fall when Soundwalk Collective contacted her seeking guidance on Hildegard’s music.

“They knew they wanted modern performers to interpret her work, so I provided editions and translations and answered questions about pronunciation, tuning, and so on,” Meconi says. “I was also able to suggest pieces that might be appropriate for specific artists.”

As part of her role, she was recorded singing Hildegard’s music at Electric Lady Studios, the legendary space founded by Jimi Hendrix in New York City.

“That was surreal,” Meconi says. “But it is also surreal for someone who specializes in music before 1600 to see Brian Eno’s name in an email subject heading and to do a translation specifically for him.”

Another highlight for Meconi, as she tells it, was learning that Pope Leo XIV had translated one of Hildegard’s song texts into Portuguese for the famous fado singer Carminho. The song was one for which Meconi had provided the edition.

“Technically speaking,” she says, “the pope and I are now collaborators.”

Who is Hildegard, and why is her work so hot right now?

“She was the Boss Lady of the 12th century.”

Hildegard of Bingen was a German Benedictine nun and polymath of epic proportions. In addition to founding a convent, writing theological treatises on her heavenly visions, inventing a new language and alphabet, corresponding with everyone who was anyone in the 12th century, and authoring books on the natural world and healing, she was a prolific musician. She penned 77 songs and a musical drama before her death at 81 in 1179.

“She was the Boss Lady of the 12th century,” Meconi says.

The Holy See says its pavilion responds to the broad theme of the Biennale, titled “In Minor Keys.” The festival’s curator, Koyo Kough, died last year, but wrote of the exhibition in her original curatorial statement: “In refusing the spectacle of horror, the time has come to listen to the minor keys, to tune in sotto voce to the whispers, to the lower frequencies; to find the oases, the islands, where the dignity of all living beings is safeguarded.”

The Biennale runs from May 9 to November 22.

The Ģ����ý’s has forged partnerships with six colleges and universities enabling students at those institutions to earn a master’s degree in business in just one year after completing their undergraduate studies through Simon’s accelerated 4+1 Business Master’s Pathway program.

The partner institutions are the State University of New York at Geneseo, Ursinus College, Union College, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, the College of Wooster, and Allegheny College.

Students enrolled at those institutions—as well as high school students applying to them—can now gain early conditional admission to Simon and a guaranteed tuition scholarship for a streamlined path to a graduate business degree in areas such as accounting, artificial intelligence in business, business analytics, finance, and marketing analytics.

“These partnerships reflect our shared commitment to expanding access to high-quality graduate education,” says Ģ����ý Provost Nicole Sampson. “By working with these outstanding partner institutions, we are enabling talented students to transition more easily from undergraduate to graduate study and prepare for successful careers with a Simon degree. Together, we are building a powerful bridge that expands opportunity and delivers lasting value for students and their families.”

Simon Business School is consistently ranked among the top business schools in the United States and has been recognized for delivering a strong return on investment for its graduates.

The offers a range of benefits designed to accelerate and simplify the graduate admissions process, including:

• A guaranteed scholarship covering at least 30 percent of tuition
• Waived application fee
• No GRE or GMAT requirement
• Early access to Simon’s career workshops and one-on-one coaching sessions

The pathways also give students a head start on career development, connecting them with Simon’s career management resources a year before they arrive on campus.

“These partnerships are about removing barriers and creating opportunities,” says Mitchell Lovett, interim dean of the Simon Business School. “We’re giving talented students a clear, affordable, and efficient pathway to a top-ranked business education.”

These partnerships are also expected to strengthen the regional economy by connecting highly skilled graduates to local employers. With clear pathways from undergraduate study to advanced business training, the agreements support workforce development efforts across the region and will reinforce Rochester’s ability to attract and keep top talent.

Leaders at partner institutions say the collaboration enhances the value of their undergraduate programs by offering students a direct route to advanced credentials.

Union President Elizabeth Kiss says of the partnership: “At Union, we are constantly seeking ways to enhance our value proposition to students by enhancing the appeal of our academic portfolio. This partnership will give our students the opportunity to build on the strength of their Union degree with an outstanding business education experience, making them even more career-ready upon graduation.”

Geneseo Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Mary C. Toale says of the partnership: “Our partnership with the Simon Business School expands meaningful pathways for Geneseo students and strengthens our commitment to their academic and professional success. This accelerated option opens new doors for students to advance in fields shaping the future, supported by two outstanding institutions.”

Jennifer VanGilder, a professor of business and economics at Ursinus College, says of the partnership: “The 4+1 partnership between the Ģ����ý and Ursinus College redefines what is possible for Ursinus graduates by transforming ambition into acceleration. The bridge between undergraduate foundations and graduate-level expertise will equip students to rise faster, think bigger, and lead with confidence as they begin their professional careers.”

The Ģ����ý plans to continue expanding the program through additional partnerships in the future. The streamlined master’s pathway is also available to Ģ����ý undergraduates in a wide range of fields.

Americans are sharply divided over immigration policy, particularly enforcement measures, but share common ground on some fundamental issues, including broad support for birthright citizenship.

Those are the takeaways from a new nationwide survey of more than 30,000 adults across all 50 states conducted by the , a nonprofit joint initiative of the Ģ����ý, Harvard University, Northeastern University, and Rutgers University.

While the findings highlight deep partisan divisions, they suggest Americans also leave room for nuance when policy matters become personal.

“Immigration is one of the most polarizing issues in American politics,” says Ģ����ý political scientist James Druckman, a coauthor of the study and a nationally recognized expert on political polarization. “But when you look closely at the data, you see that Americans will distinguish between different policies and principles.”

Deep partisan divides

The survey found that roughly two-thirds of Americans say immigration is important to them personally, but revealed stark differences along party lines in how they view policy and enforcement.

For instance, 37 percent of respondents approve of President Donald Trump’s handling of immigration, while 49 percent disapprove. Among Republicans, however, approval reaches 78 percent, compared with just 11 percent for Democrats.

Similar divisions appear in attitudes toward federal immigration enforcement efforts. Nationwide, a third of respondents approve of the tactics used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, while nearly half of them disapprove. Yet Republicans are far more supportive of them than Democrats, with the gap reaching almost 60 points.

“These differences are among the largest partisan divides we see on any policy issue,” Druckman says.

Broad support for birthright citizenship

Even as Americans disagree sharply about enforcement, the survey finds majority support for maintaining birthright citizenship, the constitutional principle of the Fourteenth Amendment that grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

Nearly 59 percent of Americans support birthright citizenship, whereas 24 percent oppose it. Support crosses party lines, although at different levels. The survey found 79 percent of Democrats, 59 percent of independents, and 39 percent of Republicans favor the policy.

Support also extends across the country geographically. Support for birthright citizenship fell below 50 percent in just three states—Montana (46 percent), Wyoming (47 percent), and South Dakota (48 percent).

“The relative consistency of support—at least compared to enforcement attitudes—suggests that Americans distinguish between debates over immigration enforcement and long-standing constitutional norms,” Druckman says.

A shift when policy gets personal

Although Americans often express strong views about immigration broadly, the survey shows that opinions shift when policy gets personal.

Ģ����ý one in four respondents say they worry that a family member or close friend could be deported, while about one in five say they personally know someone who is undocumented. Those concerns nearly double among Hispanic Americans.

The nuance plays out when Americans are asked their thoughts on deporting undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for more than 10 years.

“Americans may support enforcement in principle but become more hesitant when policies affect people who have built lives in the United States.”

Just 31 percent favor the idea of deporting longtime undocumented residents, including only half of Republicans, who widely favor stricter enforcement.

“That suggests Americans may support enforcement in principle but become more hesitant when policies affect people who have built lives in the United States,” Druckman says.

More aggressive enforcement proposals also face limited national support. Only about a third of Americans support using the military to assist with mass deportations.

Taken together, the findings suggest immigration remains a complex issue for American voters—one marked by sharp partisan divides but also pockets of potential agreement.

“People may have very different ideas about how immigration should be handled,” Druckman says. “But the data show that their views are often more nuanced than the political conversation might suggest.”

For the media

James Druckman
Martin Brewer Anderson Professor of Political Science

An expert in political behavior and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Druckman studies public opinion formation, political polarization, political and scientific communication, political psychology, and experimental and survey methods. He has published approximately 200 articles and book chapters. His latest coauthored book, (University of Chicago), was published in 2024.

• Learn more about Druckman.

The US seizure of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro stunned people around the world—including political scientists who study regime change.

“I was surprised,” says , professor of and director of the at the Ģ����ý. “Going in the middle of the night, taking the leader of the country and his wife out of the palace, and saying, ‘That’s it, we’re running the country now.’ That’s extraordinary.”

For many Venezuelans, particularly those who fled repression and economic collapse, the news sparked celebration and hope. But Goemans urges caution, arguing that removing a dictator rarely dismantles the power structures that kept him in place.

The Venezuelan military still holds power

“The military propped up Maduro,” Goemans says. “The whole system of bribery and corruption revolves around the support of the armed forces. There’s no reason to believe that they’re now suddenly going to give up power.”

He compares the situation to previous US-led interventions.

“We’ve seen this in Iraq, we’ve seen it in Afghanistan,” Goemans says. “Decapitation—taking out one leader—doesn’t change the apparatus of the state. Post–regime change almost never works the way people hope.”

Goemans points to research by political scientist showing that foreign-imposed regime change frequently leads to instability or renewed conflict, not democracy. “The new regime you install has its own interests,” Goemans says.

“They don’t necessarily align with the interests of the United States, or with democratic reform.”

Why motivation matters—and how neighboring Guyana is in play

There are somewhat conflicting statements coming out of Washington as to the motivation for the American intervention.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has as one that aimed “to bring justice to a criminal” in Maduro, who was “duly indicted under American law.” Energy Secretary Chris Wright has said the United States intends to control the flow of Venezuelan oil into the marketplace.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has laid out a three-step plan that includes the United States stabilizing the country by seizing and selling up to 50 million barrels of oil and ensuring “American, Western, and other companies have access to the Venezuelan market in a way that’s fair.” He has called the third step “one of transition,” including the integration of opposition political parties.”

Goemans says motivations matter enormously.

It is possible, he says, that different actors inside the US administration are pursuing different goals—from energy interests, to immigration enforcement, to regional dominance—without a coherent long-term plan for Venezuela itself.

“That’s problematic,” he says, “because it means there’s no clear, overarching goal. If you don’t know what comes next, you’re almost guaranteeing trouble.”

There is one other possible motivation that Goemans sees for the US intervention that he says he has been surprised no one in the Trump administration has invoked: freeing the oil-rich Essequibo region of neighboring Guyana from Venezuelan rule.

“That’s a motivation, which, in my opinion, could have kind of legitimized overthrowing Maduro,” Goemans says.

In 2023, Venezuela to Essequibo, which is nearly the size of Florida and makes up half of Guyana’s territory. Maduro unveiled new maps displaying it as part of Venezuela, named a military general as its governor, and issued Venezuelan identity cards to people living there.

“Guyana has serious worries about Venezuela,” Goemans says. “It’s a real threat to the sovereignty of Guyana and it’s surprising that nobody in the Trump administration has invoked that.”

“There was no claim that this was about restoring democracy,” he continues. “That was never raised as one of the motivations. That should concern people.”

A dangerous precedent for world order

Beyond Venezuela, Goemans warns that forcibly removing heads of state undermines long-standing international norms.

He explains this using a classic political science concept: cooperation only holds if countries believe rules will be enforced over time.

“If you treat this as a one-shot game that says, ‘We can do this once and nothing follows,’ that’s very dangerous,” he says. “Other countries will respond eventually. Maybe not immediately, but the system will unravel.”

He argued that even US allies may feel compelled to push back if territorial integrity and sovereignty no longer carry weight.

“If the United States defects from the rules, others will have incentives to defect too,” he says. “In the long run, that’s not in America’s interest.”

Can the US try Maduro?

Another uncertainty is whether US courts can legally prosecute Maduro if he is considered Venezuela’s legitimate president, which Maduro insists he is despite doubts by many world leaders.

“This is going to be fought out in court,” Goemans says. “Judges will have to decide whether he is head of state, and that’s not a simple legal question.”

Unlike Panama’s Manuel Noriega, who was never an elected president but was that country’s de facto ruler before the United States seized him with an invasion in 1989, Maduro originally came to power through constitutional succession before consolidating his authority through a series of widely condemned elections in 2018 and in 2024.

What are the alternatives?

If US military intervention is unlikely to produce a stable democracy in Venezuela, what could?

Goemans points to historical examples in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, where authoritarian regimes collapsed after mass domestic mobilization, sometimes with outside support and an independent media.

“The only way the masses can overcome a repressive elite is if they successfully organize,” he says. “That means supporting opposition groups, election monitoring, information access. Not sending troops through jungles to Caracas.”

But he acknowledges how grim that sounds to Venezuelan people suffering now, whether in the country or living abroad.

“I understand the desperation,” he says. “People have had their lives stolen from them. Of course they want immediate change.”

Still, he warns that celebrating too early could result in disappointment.

“People were very happy when Saddam’s statues came down,” he says, speaking of the former president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. “Then came the question: What comes next?”

Meet your expert

Hein Goemans

, a political science professor and the director of the Ģ����ý’s , is an expert on international conflict—how wars begin and how they end. He��is the author of (Princeton University Press, 2000) and coauthor of ��(Cambridge University Press, 2011).

Diversifying the ranks of scientists in the United States is crucial to engendering more trust in the scientific community among more Americans.

That’s the takeaway from published in Nature Human Behaviour.

“When it comes to trusting scientists, who is practicing science matters almost as much to Americans as what their science reveals,” says , the Martin Brewer Anderson Professor of Political Science at the Ģ����ý and lead author of the study.

The study was conducted in collaboration with researchers from nine universities and research institutions.

Minding the trust gaps

Americans, on the whole, have long held scientists in high esteem. There are long-standing trust gaps, however, specifically among certain demographic groups.

Women and people who are Black, live in rural areas, identify as religious, have low levels of education or are working-class, for instance, exhibit less confidence in the scientific community. That has been the case for decades and has been well documented.

What has not been well documented are why and the implications of trust gaps, Druckman says.

“Our work shows that people generally exhibit more trust in scientists who share their characteristics,” he explains. “Not surprisingly, groups with low trust in scientists are notably underrepresented in the field of science.”

White men make up about two-thirds of the scientific workforce in the United States, and nearly all scientists—92 percent—are from non-rural areas, according to the study.

That the scientific community looks a lot less like the country it serves is more than symbolic, the authors argue. Indeed, it influences how different groups of people trust scientists and scientific institutions, and how likely recommendations of scientists are to become public policy.

“Scientists provide important information to the public,” Druckman says. “Whether that information influences decision-making depends on trust.”

The study found that women and people of color, in particular, relied heavily on demographic-based judgments when deciding whether to place confidence in scientific claims. By contrast, men and white Americans showed more variability in what drives their trust, suggesting their faith in science is less based on people who “look like me.”

The role of representation

The authors also tracked how these demographic perceptions relate to broader feelings about scientific objectivity and the usefulness of science in society.

When people viewed scientists as demographically distant from themselves, they were more likely to question whether scientists remain unbiased and whether scientific knowledge benefits people like them. These beliefs, in turn, strongly shaped whether participants said they trusted scientists.

Despite these patterns, some groups—such as Asian Americans—reported high trust in scientists regardless of representation. This suggests that representation alone cannot fully explain public attitudes.

Still, the researchers conclude that demographic inclusiveness plays a central role in shoring up public trust across major social groups.

Improving representation, they write, may help bridge the growing gap between public expectations and scientific institutions at a time when misinformation, political polarization, and vaccine skepticism have put scientific credibility under strain.

“When people can see themselves in science,” Druckman says, “they’re more likely to believe in it.”

As families around the world prepare to celebrate Hanukkah, Ģ����ý associate professor can expound on the deeper stories behind the holiday’s foods, rituals, and evolving traditions.

Rubel, a scholar of Jewish studies and chair of the , specializes in how Jewish identity is expressed through everyday practices and food. For instance, her work explores how dishes like latkes and sufganiyot (fried jelly donuts) carry meanings beyond the kitchen.

“Food is one of the most powerful ways communities tell their stories,” Rubel says. “During Hanukkah, the foods we make and share help us remember the past, celebrate resilience, and connect with one another.”

Rubel was among the featured experts in a new PBS documentary, , a historical, genealogical, and culinary journey through the Jewish diaspora in homes across America. “Jewish cuisine is influenced by the economics, agriculture and culinary traditions of the many countries where Jewish communities have settled and varies widely throughout the whole world,” says Rubel.

Oil at the heart of Hanukkah: Why fried foods matter

Many people recognize the holiday through its signature fried foods. But Rubel notes that these traditions developed over centuries and vary widely across cultures.

• Ashkenazi Jews typically serve potato latkes.
• Sephardic and Mizrahi communities prepare sufganiyot, bimuelos, zalabiya, and other fried sweets.
• Some families incorporate dairy dishes, drawing on medieval interpretations of the Hanukkah story.

What unites these foods, Rubel explains, is the symbolism of oil, which commemorates the miracle at the heart of the Hanukkah story.

As Rubel explains, “Jewish food, as we think about it now, is a culture of foods connected with holidays and rituals. In the United States, these foods are an amalgamation of recipes carried here by Jewish immigrants from their countries of origin. Cookbooks and family recipes are vital historical documents that preserve culture and history by recording culinary traditions, revealing social life, and demonstrating how communities adapt over time.”

Many ways to celebrate

Rubel emphasizes that Hanukkah is not a monolithic holiday. Its rituals, from lighting the menorah to singing blessings and exchanging gifts, vary across communities and generations.

Some families add new traditions such as:

• Hosting “latke tasting” gatherings
• Experimenting with global Jewish recipes
• Incorporating social justice themes into nightly candle-lighting
• Sharing stories of family immigration and heritage

“Hanukkah is a living tradition,” she says. “It continues to evolve, and food is one of the ways people reinterpret what the holiday means for them today.”

Ģ����ý students, faculty, and staff no longer need to leave campus to satisfy their Wegmans craving. Under a new partnership, are now stocking many of the beloved grocery chain’s most popular prepared foods—from Ultimate Chocolate Chip Cookies and Ultimate Chocolate Cake, to protein bowls, pasta, Asian meals, and vegetarian options.

The collaboration makes it easier than ever for the Ģ����ý community to grab a Wegmans favorite between classes or after work. Delivered to campus throughout the week, the prepared meals and snacks are available for purchase at select dining locations with student meal plans, Rocky Bucks, and credit cards.

Delivering prepared meals to a university campus is a new venture for Wegmans—not just in its hometown of Rochester, but anywhere in the country. The grocery store chain has more than 100 locations across nine states and Washington, DC.

“Partnering with the Ģ����ý to launch our new ‘Meals Market’ concept is an exciting milestone for us,” says Frank Guidice, Wegmans digital restaurant director. “When the Ģ����ý team brought the idea forward, we saw a unique opportunity to bring the quality, convenience, and variety Wegmans is known for directly to students and staff.”

The partnership began as a pilot program in 2024 and was such a hit that the University and Wegmans kept it going. For the University community, the micro-Wegmans displays marry the experience of shopping at Rochester’s favorite supermarket with on-campus convenience.

“This is more than just convenient access to food we all feel good about,” says University Vice President for Student Life John Blackshear. “It’s a celebration of two iconic Rochester institutions working together to enrich campus life. When I arrived at the University, I saw bringing Wegmans to campus as a key first step in the strategy to bring the City of Rochester into Ģ����ý dining offerings.”

Katherine Guallpa ’27, a third-year student, says visiting the Wegmans display in Hillside Market in Susan B. Anthony Halls between classes has become part of her routine.

“I love Wegmans,” says Guallpa, who picked up a bowl of Wegmans pasta Alfredo with broccoli and chicken to go. “I don’t know what I’d do without it.”

The arrangement builds on decades of shared history between the University and Wegmans, two of Rochester’s most recognizable names.

The Wegman family has been a longtime and generous supporter of the University, helping to establish Wegmans Hall—home to the Goergen Institute for Data Science and Artificial Intelligence—and funding major advancements in children’s health. Wegmans chairman Danny Wegman served as the University’s Board of Trustees chairman from 2016 to 2018, and Wegmans CEO Colleen Wegman earned her MBA at the in 2000. Recently, Mary Ellen Burris, the longtime head of consumer affairs at Wegmans and an alumna of the , was the subject of a URochester profile.

Higher education in the United States enjoys broad public support, but Americans are concerned about its costs and some aspects of campus culture, according to a sweeping new national survey led in part by , a political scientist at the .

The study—“Higher Education Public Opinion Analysis: Strong Support Amid Specific Vulnerabilities”—is the first report from the (AHEB), a collaboration among researchers at the URochester, Northeastern University, Rutgers University, Harvard University, and others. It draws on more than 31,000 survey responses from all 50 states, making it one of the most comprehensive snapshots of public opinion on US colleges and universities in recent years.

Druckman, the Martin Brewer Anderson Professor of Political Science, says the findings paint a nuanced picture of an institution that Americans trust and view as a crucial incubator for technology and scientific innovation—despite facing challenges in the way of public perception.

“Universities remain among the most trusted institutions in American life,” Druckman says. “But there’s clear evidence that the public wants higher education to take its challenges seriously, from affordability to free speech. The good news is that broad support provides a foundation for doing just that.”

Broad support, deep concerns

According to the report, 59 percent of Americans approve of the role US universities play in society, and 75 percent say they trust them at least somewhat. This places higher education fourth among major institutions evaluated in terms of “institutional trust,” behind only hospitals and doctors, the military, and scientists and researchers.

Nine in 10 Americans recognize universities as vital for science and technology, while 83 percent credit them with advancing healthcare and economic growth. Nearly three-quarters also view them as crucial for democracy.

At the same time, the survey found widespread anxiety about campus life and rising costs:

• 87 percent of respondents say they are concerned about tuition and student debt.
• 84 percent worry about free speech on campus, and 77 percent about what they perceive as universities and colleges having a “liberal bias.”
• More than eight in 10 express concerns about discrimination on campus, including racism, antisemitism, and Islamophobia.
• Three-quarters have concerns about transgender athletes.

“These aren’t fringe issues,” Druckman says. “They’re shared concerns across the political spectrum, even if people disagree on solutions. The data suggest the public isn’t anti-university. People just want to see institutions engage constructively with difficult topics.”

Majorities oppose federal and state funding cuts

Another key takeaway is that the public strongly rejects government efforts to reduce university research support.

Majorities opposed cutting federal or state funding for science, health, or education by margins of roughly four or five to one. Nearly half of Americans say they favor more investment in scientific research, and 57 percent want more medical research funding.

The survey found that many respondents would act to protect research funding:

• 57 percent say they would contact a member of Congress to oppose cuts to science funding if asked by a university to which they have ties.
• 62 percent would do the same to defend health research.

Those findings, Druckman notes, show universities have an underused reservoir of public goodwill.

“There’s enormous potential for mobilization,” he says. “People want to stand up for the research and innovation that make universities essential to national progress.”

A complex but promising picture

The report, authored by Druckman along with David Lazer and Mauricio Santillana (Northeastern), Katherine Ognyanova (Rutgers), and Matthew Baum (Harvard), argues that higher education operates from a “position of relative strength,” but faces “genuine vulnerabilities” that could erode that strength if left unaddressed.

The researchers recommend that universities emphasize shared values—such as scientific discovery, technological innovation, and community benefit—while proactively acknowledging public concerns about affordability, discrimination, and free expression, and avoiding dismissing them as partisan attacks.

AHEB plans to release additional reports tracking changes in attitudes over time and exploring how public views of universities intersect with politics, media coverage, and policy debates.

For Druckman, who is widely considered an authority on political polarization and trust in institutions, the findings offer a measure of optimism.

“We live in an era in which many institutions have lost credibility,” he says. “Universities haven’t. They still enjoy the confidence of most Americans—Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike.

“That’s an extraordinary asset,” he adds, “but one that must be nurtured.”

Criticism that opinion journalism blurs the lines of just-the-facts reporting and has no place among media outlets that stake their reputation on balanced coverage has intensified in recent years.

But as media fragmentation and public mistrust in journalism deepens, , an associate professor in the at the , offers a fresh lens through which to understand opinion journalism.

Her suggests that commentary, while often dismissed as biased and at odds with fact-based journalism, plays a vital role in a healthy democracy by “facilitating appropriate uncertainty” on unsettled questions of public import.

Navigating unanswered questions

There is no shortage of questions with unsettled answers. What principles should guide the allocation of public resources? What drives inflation, and what policies most effectively reduce it? What is the best way to end a war? These questions can be debated.

Opinion writers, Soysal argues, are in a strong position to help news consumers make sense of questions like these because they have the agency to convey the breadth and depth of potential answers and report on the total distribution of evidence.

Soysal’s research paid special attention to commentary in mainstream American newspapers, but she says her arguments can be applied to opinion journalism more broadly.

The origins of modern opinion journalism��

The model of the modern newspaper opinion section was born on September 21, 1970, in The New York Times. That day, readers looking for the obituaries in their usual place opposite the editorial page found something new: essays by a political scientist, a Chinese novelist, and a journalist from Baltimore.

The section was a new form of journalism The Times called “the Op-Ed,” so named because it appeared opposite the editorial page and not, as many people supposed then and for decades afterward, because it offered “opinion editorials” or views contrary to, or “opposite of,” The Times’s editorials.

The idea was to, as The Times put it, “provide a forum for wide-ranging political, social, personal and whimsical expression and commentary on the issues of the day” and “stimulat[e] new thought and provok[e] new discussion on public problems.”

While the “Op-Ed” section became a must-read and spawned a new standard for the newspaper industry, it has been perennially dogged by confusion about its name and role in the ensuing decades. The Times renamed the section “Guest Essays” in 2021.

“A half century ago, Times editors made a bet that readers would appreciate a wider range of opinion,” The Times’s Opinion Editor Kathleen Kingsbury . “We are making much the same bet, but at a time when the scales of opinion journalism can seem increasingly tilted against the free and the fair, the sober and honest. We work every day to correct that imbalance.”

More transparency can build more trust

To preserve and enhance the good served by opinion journalism, Soysal makes a case for greater transparency on the part of authors and the news outlets as to the “epistemic status of claims,” or strength of evidence, in commentary.

“For instance, opinion journalists could explicitly mention the uncertainty of the issues discussed, using expressions of uncertainty and hedges (‘this is an unsettled question, and future evidence could shift our understanding’, ‘one reasonable interpretation is that’, etc.),” Soysal writes. “This type of flagging could be done at the level of individual opinion pieces, or at a more general level, for instance, in the general description of the opinion section.”

Soysal notes that opinion journalism is a growing part of the news media landscape, and she makes the case that, when properly framed, it is not only compatible with the mission of journalism but also integral to it.

“As I see it,” Soysal writes, “if newspapers were more explicit about this function—rather than relying on the brief, unclear, and sometimes even contradictory explanations they currently provide—it might help foster greater trust in opinion journalism and offer a stronger justification for its role in public discourse.”

A longstanding partnership between the Ģ����ý’s and New York has been renewed for another 10 years, reinforcing a joint commitment to expand the New York State economy through university-industry collaboration.

CEIS is one of 15 designated by the . CATs are competitively selected for their ability to drive research commercialization and strengthen New York’s position in strategically important technology fields.

The renewed designation comes with $1 million in annual state funding, which CEIS uses to support industry-sponsored research in optics, photonics, and imaging—sectors in which the Finger Lakes region is a —as well as in other sectors important to the New York State economy such as integrated electronics, communications, and life sciences.

“We’re extremely grateful to New York State for its continued support of CEIS and to our state delegation in Albany who continue to advocate its funding,” says , CEIS director and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the URochester. “CEIS and the CAT program play a vital role in Governor Hochul’s economic development vision that focuses on innovation in strategic industries, such as semiconductors and artificial intelligence (AI), and builds on our regional assets, including the New York State Center of Excellence in Data Science and Artificial Intelligence, the University’s , and .”

State legislators praised the renewed partnership for its role in strengthening New York’s innovation economy and supporting workforce development.

“Our Centers for Advanced Technologies and Centers of Excellence continue to be one of the state’s top-performing economic development programs, driving entrepreneurship, attracting and training qualified workforces, and enabling New York to remain competitive in transformative industries,” says Assemblymember Harry Bronson. “CEIS has been instrumental in advancing next-generation technologies while producing significant economic impact—helping New York businesses innovate, expand, and create good-paying jobs.”

Senator Jeremy Cooney also emphasized the regional and statewide benefits of CEIS’s collaborative approach to research and development.

“This renewal is a recognition of the transformational impact CEIS has had in cementing Rochester, the Finger Lakes region, and all of New York State as a leader in the optics and imaging industries,” Cooney says. “Bringing together businesses and academia to collaborate is a proven model for success and is key to advancing our state’s economic priorities.”

Hope Knight, the ESD president and commissioner, called the Centers for Advanced Technology vital to growing the state’s economy and innovation ecosystem.

“By investing in the industries of tomorrow, New Yorkers benefit today through dynamic partnerships that help to create new jobs, generate more revenues, and encourage more companies to establish a footprint in communities all throughout the state,” Knight says.

A decade of economic impact

In the last decade, CEIS has helped create more than 270 new jobs and generate more than $537 million in economic impact. The center does this by using its funding to provide matching grants to university researchers—at the URochester and the Rochester Institute of Technology—working on projects sponsored by private industry partners.

“The CAT program has been an engine for growth, connecting world-class university researchers with forward-looking companies,” says , director of the CEIS Intelligent Imaging Initiative. “With this renewed investment, we’ll continue to strengthen the Rochester region’s leadership in fields that are critical to everything from healthcare and defense to telecommunications and consumer electronics.”

One of those companies, Clerio Vision, has leveraged CEIS support to accelerate development and attract investment. “Since Clerio Vision’s inception, CEIS has been more than a funding source—it has been a strategic partner that helped us turn university science into a commercial platform, attracting major corporate collaborators and multiple venture capital rounds,” says Mike Totterman, who chairs the board a Clerio Vision. “Their matching grants minimized the risk of early research and development and kept high-value jobs, labs, and manufacturing right here in New York. We would not be on the cusp of bringing disruptive vision correction technology to market without CEIS.”

Another long-time collaborator, SiMPore, credits the center with helping bring breakthrough technologies to life.

“CEIS has been an indispensable partner in growing our technology in partnership with SiMPore,” says company cofounder and Ģ����ý biomedical engineering professor James McGrath. “Thanks to the boost CEIS has provided through the years, we’ve been able to consistently implement one idea while forging the next.”

CEIS supports a diverse portfolio of research collaborations in ophthalmic and vision science, fiber optic communications, biomedical imaging, geospatial imaging, precision optics, consumer imaging and display technologies, microelectronics, radio frequency communications, and sensors.

As the region continues to attract attention as a hub for advanced manufacturing and innovation across multiple sectors, the renewed CEIS-NYSTAR partnership plays a key role in ensuring New York remains at the forefront of emerging technologies.